Drugs

3) - The government has NO right to tell anyone what they can put in their body. The consumption of drugs in itself does not violate others rights to the person or property. Criminalising drugs infringes on one's personal sovereignty.

you must remember that the vast majority of people are too stupid to look after themselves and so the government must step in to help them.

If someone on drugs harms another, prosecute them.

Maybe because the state doesn't educate them properly.

Why should there be an NHS?

If someone on drugs harms another, prosecute them.

Preventing them harming another first would be better.

I wouldn't trust the state to do that.

If you take yourself to hell then so be it but if you take someone along with you then no. Yes I see the logic in that.

Yet you would trust the state to prosecute accurately and successfully?

That's one of the few things government CAN do well.

you must remember that the vast majority of people are too stupid to look after themselves and so the government must step in to help them.

Think of the impact on the NHS if the number of drug users grew by any significant amount. Think of the impact on the economy if workers lost the urge to actually make something of their life.

The state wants us to be dependent on them. Feckless numb-nuts demoralised by social breakdown, unemployment and trashy media who turn to drugs for escape massively increase state-dependency for whole communities and next generations.

The will to increase power is inherent in the institution of government--the Americans have a constitution protecting them from it, but even their govt grows and grows.

My instincts are all libertarian, and I used to say automatically that drugs should be decriminalised. Not sure now--yes, the war on drugs cannot be won, but I've known a lot of heroin and crack addicts, whose lives were **** regardless of crime, and I've lately become concerned (sort of Ann Widdecombeish) for the 'public morals'.

I'm concerned that we're not actively, positively able to express strong values and moral confidence, and I'm increasingly sure that society needs that defined moral core to function and for freedom and happiness to prosper, including minimising the number of people turning to drugs.

I saw the poster ad for a new movie and it's slogan was,

"More guns than Goodfellas, more cocaine than Casino, and more swearing than (something else)",

and it didn't occur to me 'til later what a degrading way this was to promote a piece of entertainment. I don't mind seeing movies that feature violence, swearing or drugs, but this is not in itself a recommendation, and a culture which accepts that it is has problems.

It's only one example I know, but I think our public trends are toward a conscious amorality--can anybody name a long-lived society that has survived without a conscious positive moral core, or more significantly maybe, a religion?

edit: This (link) is basically my still lingering viewpoint, but I think I'm moving more toward a traditional conservative stance. Legalising drugs while continuing the drift toward a totally religion-free, amoral society don't seem wise.

Sounds like you are turning into a grandmother.